Computer-implemented system and method for visual document classification

ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented system and method for visual document classification are provided. One or more uncoded documents, each associated with a visual representation, are obtained. Reference documents, each associated with a classification code and a visual representation of that classification code, are obtained. At least one of the uncoded documents is compared to the reference documents and the reference documents similar to the uncoded document are identified based on the comparison. A suggestion for assigning one of the classification codes to the uncoded document based on the classification codes of the similar reference documents is provided, including displaying the visual representation of the suggested classification code placed on a portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one uncoded document. An acceptance of the suggested classification code is received and a size of the displayed visual representation of the accepted classification code is increased.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This non-provisional patent application is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,635,223, issued Jan. 21, 2014; which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application, Ser. No. 61/229,216, filed Jul. 28, 2009, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application, Ser. No. 61/236,490, filed Aug. 24, 2009, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

FIELD

This application relates in general to information classification, in particular, to a system and method for providing a classification suggestion for electronically stored information.

BACKGROUND

Historically, document review during the discovery phase of litigation and for other types of legal matters, such as due diligence and regulatory compliance, have been conducted manually. During document review, individual reviewers, generally licensed attorneys, are typically assigned sets of documents for coding. A reviewer must carefully study each document and categorize the document by assigning a code or other marker from a set of descriptive classifications, such as “privileged,” “responsive,” and “non-responsive.” The classifications can affect the disposition of each document, including admissibility into evidence. As well, during discovery, document review can potentially affect the outcome of the legal underlying matter, and consistent and accurate results are crucial.

Manual document review is tedious and time-consuming. Marking documents is performed at the sole discretion of each reviewer and inconsistent results can occur due to misunderstanding, time pressures, fatigue, or other factors. A large volume of documents reviewed, often with only limited time, can create a loss of mental focus and a loss of purpose for the resultant classification. Each new reviewer also faces a steep learning curve to become familiar with the legal matter, coding categories, and review techniques.

Currently, with the increasingly widespread movement to electronically stored information (ESI), manual document review is becoming impracticable and outmoded. The often exponential growth of ESI can exceed the bounds reasonable for conventional manual human review and the sheer scale of staffing ESI review underscores the need for computer-assisted ESI review tools.

Conventional ESI review tools have proven inadequate for providing efficient, accurate, and consistent results. For example, DiscoverReady LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, conducts semi-automated document review through multiple passes over a document set in ESI form. During the first pass, documents are grouped by category and basic codes are assigned. Subsequent passes refine and assign further encodings. Multiple pass ESI review also requires a priori project-specific knowledge engineering, which is generally applicable to only a single project, thereby losing the benefit of any inferred knowledge or experiential know-how for use in other review projects.

Thus, there remains a need for a system and method for increasing the efficiency of document review by providing classification suggestions based on reference documents while ultimately ensuring independent reviewer discretion.

SUMMARY

Document review efficiency can be increased by identifying relationships between reference ESI, which is ESI that has been assigned classification codes, and uncoded ESI and providing a suggestion for classification based on the classification relationships. Uncoded ESI is formed into thematic or conceptual clusters. The uncoded ESI for a cluster is compared to a set of reference ESI. Those reference ESI most similar to the uncoded ESI are identified based on, for instance, semantic similarity and are used to form a classification suggestion. The classification suggestion can be provided with a confidence level that reflects the amount of similarity between the uncoded ESI and reference ESI in the neighborhood. The classification suggestion can then be accepted, rejected, or ignored by a reviewer.

A computer-implemented system and method for visual document classification are provided. One or more uncoded documents, each associated with a visual representation, are obtained. One or more reference documents, each associated with a classification code and a visual representation of that classification code, are obtained. At least one of the uncoded documents is compared to one or more of the reference documents and the reference documents similar to the at least one uncoded document are identified based on the comparison. A suggestion for assigning one of the classification codes to the at least uncoded document based on the classification codes of the similar reference documents is provided, including displaying the visual representation of the suggested classification code placed on a portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one uncoded document. An acceptance of the suggested classification code is received and a size of the displayed visual representation of the accepted classification code is increased.

Still other embodiments of the present invention will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description, wherein are described embodiments by way of illustrating the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention. As will be realized, the invention is capable of other and different embodiments and its several details are capable of modifications in various obvious respects, all without departing from the spirit and the scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the drawings and detailed description are to be regarded as illustrative in nature and not as restrictive.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a system for providing reference electronically stored information as a suggestion for uncoded electronically stored information, in accordance with one embodiment.

FIG. 2 is a process flow diagram showing a method for providing a classification suggestion for uncoded electronically stored information, in accordance with one embodiment.

FIG. 3 is a process flow diagram showing a method for providing a confidence level for a classification suggestion for use in the method of FIG. 2.

FIG. 4 is a process flow diagram showing a method for accepting or rejecting a classification suggestion for use in the method of FIG. 2.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, ways to generate a neighborhood of reference documents for a clustered uncoded document for use in the method of FIG. 2.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, classifier routines for suggesting a classification for an uncoded document for use in the method of FIG. 2.

FIG. 7 is a screenshot showing, by way of example, a visual display of reference documents in relation to uncoded documents.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, a cluster with a combination of classified reference documents, uncoded documents, and documents given a classification.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In a sense, previously classified ESI capture valuable knowledge gleaned from earlier work on similar or related legal projects, and can consequently serve as a known reference point in classifying uncoded ESI in subsequent projects.

Providing Classification Suggestions Using Reference Documents

Reference ESI is ESI that has been previously classified and which is selected as representative of correctly coded ESI under each of the classifications. Specifically, the relationship between uncoded ESI and reference ESI in terms of semantic similarity or distinction can be used as an aid in providing suggestions for classifying the uncoded ESI.

End-to end ESI review requires a computerized support environment within which classification can be performed. FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a system 10 for providing reference electronically stored information as a suggestion for uncoded electronically stored information, in accordance with one embodiment. By way of illustration, the system 10 operates in a distributed computing environment, which includes a plurality of heterogeneous systems and ESI sources. Henceforth, a single item of ESI will be referenced as a “document,” although ESI can include other forms of non-document data, as described infra. A backend server 11 is coupled to a storage device 13, which stores documents 14 a in the form of structured or unstructured data, a database 30 for maintaining information about the documents, and a look up database 37 for storing many-to-many mappings 38 between documents and document features, such as themes and concepts. The storage device 13 also stores reference documents 14 b, which provide a training set of trusted and known results for use in guiding ESI classification. The reference documents 14 b can be hand-selected or automatically determined. Additionally, the set of reference documents can be predetermined or can be generated dynamically, as the selected uncoded documents are classified and subsequently added to the set of reference documents.

The backend server 11 is coupled to an intranetwork 21 and executes a workbench software suite 31 for providing a user interface framework for automated document management, processing, analysis, and classification. In a further embodiment, the backend server 11 can be accessed via an internetwork 22. The workbench suite 31 includes a document mapper 32 that includes a clustering engine 33, similarity searcher 34, classifier 35, and display generator 36. Other workbench suite modules are possible.

The clustering engine 33 performs efficient document scoring and clustering of uncoded documents, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029526, published Feb. 3, 201, pending, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029536, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029527, published Feb. 3, 201, pending, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

Briefly, clusters of uncoded documents 14 a are formed and can be organized along vectors, known as spines, based on a similarity of the clusters. The similarity can be expressed in terms of distance. The content of each uncoded document within the corpus can be converted into a set of tokens, which are word-level or character-level n-grams, raw terms, concepts, or entities. Other tokens are possible. An n-gram is a predetermined number of items selected from a source. The items can include syllables, letters, or words, as well as other items. A raw term is a term that has not been processed or manipulated. Concepts typically include nouns and noun phrases obtained through part-of-speech tagging that have a common semantic meaning. Entities further refine nouns and noun phrases into people, places, and things, such as meetings, animals, relationships, and various other objects. Entities can be extracted using entity extraction techniques known in the field. Clustering of the uncoded documents can be based on cluster criteria, such as the similarity of tokens, including n-grams, raw terms, concepts, entities, email addresses, or other metadata.

The similarity searcher 34 identifies the reference documents 14 b that are similar to selected uncoded documents 14 a, clusters, or spines. The classifier 35 provides a machine-generated suggestion and confidence level for classification of the selected uncoded documents 14 a, clusters, or spines, as further described below beginning with reference to FIG. 2. The display generator 36 arranges the clusters and spines in thematic or conceptual relationships in a two-dimensional visual display space. Once generated, the visual display space is transmitted to a work client 12 by the backend server 11 via the document mapper 32 for presenting to a reviewer. The reviewer can include an individual person who is assigned to review and classify the documents 14 a by designating a code. Hereinafter, unless otherwise indicated, the terms “reviewer” and “custodian” are used interchangeably with the same intended meaning. Other types of reviewers are possible, including machine-implemented reviewers.

The document mapper 32 operates on documents 14 a, which can be retrieved from the storage 13, as well as a plurality of local and remote sources. The reference documents 14 b can be also be stored in the local and remote sources. The local sources include documents 17 maintained in a storage device 16 coupled to a local server 15 and documents 20 maintained in a storage device 19 coupled to a local client 18. The local server 15 and local client 18 are interconnected to the backend server 11 and the work client 12 over the intranetwork 21. In addition, the document mapper 32 can identify and retrieve documents from remote sources over the internetwork 22, including the Internet, through a gateway 23 interfaced to the intranetwork 21. The remote sources include documents 26 maintained in a storage device 25 coupled to a remote server 24 and documents 29 maintained in a storage device 28 coupled to a remote client 27. Other document sources, either local or remote, are possible.

The individual documents 14 a, 14 b, 17, 20, 26, 29 include all forms and types of structured and unstructured ESI including electronic message stores, word processing documents, electronic mail (email) folders, Web pages, and graphical or multimedia data. Notwithstanding, the documents could be in the form of structurally organized data, such as stored in spreadsheets or databases.

In one embodiment, the individual documents 14 a, 14 b, 17, 20, 26, 29 can include electronic message folders storing email and attachments, such as maintained by the Outlook and Outlook Express products, licensed by Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash. The database can be on SQL-based relational database, such as the Oracle database management system, Release 8, licensed by Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, Calif.

Additionally, the individual documents 17, 20, 26, 29 include uncoded documents, reference documents, and previously uncoded documents that have been assigned a classification code. The number of uncoded documents may be too large for processing in a single pass. Typically, a subset of uncoded documents are selected for a document review assignment and stored as a document corpus, which can also include one or more reference documents as discussed infra.

The reference documents are initially uncoded documents that can be selected from the corpus or other source of uncoded documents and subsequently classified. When combined with uncoded documents, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029526, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029536, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029527, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference, the reference documents can provide suggestions for classification of the remaining uncoded documents in the corpus based on visual relationships between the reference documents and uncoded documents. The reviewer can classify one or more of the uncoded documents by assigning a code to each document, representing a classification, based on the suggestions, if desired. The suggestions can also be used for other purposes, such as quality control. Documents given a classification code by the reviewer are then stored. Additionally, the now-coded documents can be used as reference documents in related document review assignments. The assignment is completed once all uncoded documents in the assignment have been assigned a classification code.

In a further embodiment, the reference documents can be used as a training set to form machine-generated suggestions for classifying uncoded documents. The reference documents can be selected as representative of the document corpus for a project in which data organization or classification is desired. A set of reference documents can be generated for each document review project or alternatively, the reference documents can be selected from a previously conducted document review project that is related to the current document review project. Guided review assists a reviewer in building a reference document set representative of the corpus for use in classifying uncoded documents. Alternatively, the reference document set can be selected from a previously conducted document review that is related to the current document review project.

During guided review, uncoded documents that are dissimilar to each other are identified based on a similarity threshold. Other methods for determining dissimilarity are possible. Identifying a set of dissimilar documents provides a group of documents that is representative of the corpus for a document review project. Each identified dissimilar document is then classified by assigning a particular code based on the content of the document to generate a set of reference documents for the document review project. Guided review can be performed by a reviewer, a machine, or a combination of the reviewer and machine.

Other methods for generating a reference document set for a document review project using guided review are possible, including clustering. A set of uncoded document to be classified can be clustered, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029526, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029536, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029527, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

Briefly, a plurality of the clustered uncoded documents is selected based on selection criteria, such as cluster centers or sample clusters. The cluster centers can be used to identify uncoded documents in a cluster that are most similar or dissimilar to the cluster center. The identified uncoded documents are then selected for classification. After classification, the previously uncoded documents represent at reference set. In a further example, sample clusters can be used to generate a reference set by selecting one or more sample clusters based on cluster relation criteria, such as size, content, similarity, or dissimilarity. The uncoded documents in the selected sample clusters are then selected for classification by assigning codes. The classified documents represent a reference document set for the document review project. Other methods for selecting uncoded documents for use as a reference set are possible. Although the above process has been described with reference to documents, other objects or tokens are possible.

For purposes of legal discovery, the codes used to classify uncoded documents can include “privileged,” “responsive,” or “non-responsive.” Other codes are possible. A “privileged” document contains information that is protected by a privilege, meaning that the document should not be disclosed to an opposing party. Disclosing a “privileged” document can result in unintentional waiver of the subject matter. A “responsive” document contains information that is related to a legal matter on which the document review project is based and a “non-responsive” document includes information that is not related to the legal matter. During taxonomy generation, a list of codes to be used during classification can be provided by a reviewer or determined automatically. The uncoded documents to be classified can be divided into subsets of documents, which are each provided to a particular reviewer as an assignment. To maintain consistency, the same codes can be used across all assignments in the document review project.

Obtaining reference sets and cluster sets, and identifying the most similar reference documents can be performed by the system 10, which includes individual computer systems, such as the backend server 11, work server 12, server 15, client 18, remote server 24 and remote client 27. The individual computer systems are general purpose, programmed digital computing devices consisting of a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), non-volatile secondary storage, such as a hard drive or CD ROM drive, network interfaces, and peripheral devices, including user interfacing means, such as a keyboard and display 39. The various implementations of the source code and object and byte codes can be held on a computer-readable storage medium, such as a floppy disk, hard drive, digital video disk (DVD), random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM) and similar storage mediums. For example, program code, including software programs, and data are loaded into the RAM for execution and processing by the CPU and results are generated for display, output, transmittal, or storage.

Classification code suggestions associated with a confidence level can be provided to assist a reviewer in making classification decisions for uncoded documents. FIG. 2 is a process flow diagram showing a method for providing a classification suggestion for uncoded electronically stored information, in accordance with one embodiment. A set of uncoded documents is first identified, then clustered, based on thematic or conceptual relationships (block 41). The clusters can be generated on-demand or previously-generated and stored, as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.

Once obtained, an uncoded document within one of the clusters is selected (block 42). A neighborhood of reference documents that is most relevant to the selected uncoded document is identified (block 43). Determining the neighborhood of the selected uncoded document is further discussed below with reference to FIG. 5. The neighborhood of reference documents is determined separately for each cluster and can include one or more reference documents within that cluster. The number of reference documents in a neighborhood can be determined automatically or by an individual reviewer. In a further embodiment, the neighborhood of reference documents is defined for each available classification code or subset of class codes. A classification for the selected uncoded document is suggested based on the classification of the similar coded reference documents in the neighborhood (block 44). The suggested classification can then be accepted, rejected, or ignored by the reviewer, as further described below with reference to FIG. 4. Optionally, a confidence level for the suggested classification can be provided (block 45), as further described below with reference to FIG. 3.

The machine-generated suggestion for classification and associated confidence level can be determined by the classifier as further discussed below with reference to FIGS. 3 and 5. Once generated, the reference documents in the neighborhood and the selected uncoded document are analyzed to provide a classification suggestion. The analysis of the selected uncoded document and neighborhood reference documents can be based on one or more routines performed by the classifier, such as a nearest neighbor (NN) classifier, as further discussed below with reference to FIG. 5. The classification suggestion is displayed to the reviewer through visual display, such as textually or graphically, or other ways of display. For example, the suggestion can be displayed as part of a visual representation of the uncoded document, as further discussed below with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, and as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,271,804, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.

Once the suggested classification code is provided for the selected uncoded document, the classifier can provide a confidence level for the suggested classification, which can be presented as an absolute value or percentage. FIG. 3 is a process flow diagram showing a method for providing a confidence level for a classification suggestion for use in the method of FIG. 2. The confidence level is determined from a distance metric based on the amount of similarity of the uncoded document to the reference documents used for the classification suggestion (block 51). In one embodiment, the similarity between each reference document in the neighborhood the selected uncoded document is determined as the cos σ of the score vectors for the document and each reference document being compared. The cos σ provides a measure of relative similarity or dissimilarity between tokens, including the concepts in the documents and is equivalent to the inner products between the score vectors for the uncoded document and the reference document.

In the described embodiment, the cos σ is calculated in accordance with the equation:

${\cos\;\sigma_{AB}} = \frac{\left\langle {{\overset{\rightarrow}{S}}_{A} \cdot {\overset{\rightarrow}{S}}_{B}} \right\rangle}{{{\overset{\rightarrow}{S}}_{A}}{{\overset{\rightarrow}{S}}_{B}}}$

where cos σ_(AB) comprises the similarity metric between uncoded document A and reference document B, {right arrow over (S)}_(A) comprises a score vector for the uncoded document A, and {right arrow over (S)}_(B) comprises a score vector for the reference document B. Other forms of determining similarity using a distance metric are feasible, as would be recognized by one skilled in the art, such as using Euclidean distance. Practically, a reference document in the neighborhood that is identical to the uncoded document would result in a confidence level of 100%, while a reference document that is completely dissimilar would result in a confidence level of 0%.

Alternatively, the confidence level can take into account the classifications of reference documents in the neighborhood that are different than the suggested classification and adjust the confidence level accordingly (block 52). For example, the confidence level of the suggested classification can be reduced by subtracting the calculated similarity metric of the unsuggested classification from the similarity metric of the reference document of the suggested classification. Other confidence level measures are possible. The reviewer can consider confidence level when assigning a classification to a selected uncoded document. Alternatively, the classifier can automatically assign the suggested classification upon determination. In one embodiment, the classifier only assigns an uncoded document with the suggested classification if the confidence level is above a threshold value (block 53), which can be set by the reviewer or the classifier. For example, a confidence level of more than 50% can be required for a classification to be suggested to the reviewer. Finally, once determined, the confidence level for the suggested classification is provided to the reviewer (block 54).

The suggested classification can be accepted, rejected, or ignored by the reviewer. FIG. 4 is a process flow diagram showing a method for accepting or rejecting a classification suggestion for use in the method of FIG. 2. Once the classification has been suggested (block 61), the reviewer can accept or reject the suggestion (block 62). If accepted, the previously uncoded document is coded with the suggested classification (block 63). Additionally, the now-coded document can be stored as a coded document. In a further embodiment, the suggested classification is automatically assigned to the uncoded document, as further described below with reference to FIG. 6. If rejected, the uncoded document remains uncoded and can be manually classified by the reviewer under a different classification code (block 64). Once the selected uncoded document is assigned a classification code, either by the reviewer or automatically, the newly classified document can be added to the set of reference documents for use in classifying further uncoded documents. Subsequently, a further uncoded document can be selected for classification using similar reference documents.

In a further embodiment, if the manual classification is different from the suggested classification, a discordance is identified by the system (block 65). Optionally, the discordance can be visually depicted to the reviewer (block 66). For example, the discordance can be displayed as part of a visual representation of the discordant document, as further discussed below with reference to FIG. 8. Additionally, the discordance is flagged if a discordance threshold value is exceeded, which can be set by the reviewer or the classifier. The discordance threshold is based on the confidence level. In one embodiment, the discordance value is identical to the confidence level of the suggested classification. In a further embodiment, the discordance value is the difference between the confidence level of the suggested classification and the confidence level of the manually-assigned classification.

In a yet further embodiment, an entire cluster, or a cluster spine containing multiple clusters of uncoded documents can be selected and a classification for the entire cluster or cluster spine can be suggested. For instance, for cluster classification, a cluster is selected and a score vector for the center of the cluster is determined as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029526, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029536, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029527, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

Briefly, a neighborhood for the selected cluster is determined based on a distance metric. Each reference document in the selected cluster is associated with a score vector and the distance is determined by comparing the score vector of the cluster center with the score vector for each of the reference documents to determine a neighborhood of reference documents that are closest to the cluster center. However, other methods for generating a neighborhood are possible. Once determined, one of the classification measures is applied to the neighborhood to determine a suggested classification for the selected cluster, as further discussed below with reference to FIG. 6.

One or more reference documents nearest to a selected uncoded document are identified and provided as a neighborhood of reference documents for the selected uncoded document. FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, ways to generate a neighborhood 70 of reference documents for a clustered uncoded document for use in the method of FIG. 2. Types of neighborhood generation include inclusion 71, injection 72, and nearest neighbor 73. Other ways to generate the neighborhood are possible. Inclusion 71 includes using uncoded documents and reference documents to generate clusters, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029526, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Briefly, a set of reference documents is grouped with one or more uncoded documents and are organized into clusters containing both uncoded and reference documents, as discussed above. The reference documents in the cluster, or a subset thereof, is then used as the neighborhood for an uncoded document.

Injection 72 includes inserting reference documents into clusters of uncoded documents based on similarity, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029536, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Briefly, a set of clusters of uncoded documents is obtained, as discussed above. Once obtained, a cluster center is determined for each cluster. The cluster center is representative of all the documents in that particular cluster. One or more cluster centers can be compared with a set of reference documents and those reference documents that satisfy a threshold of similarity to that cluster center are selected. The selected reference documents are then inserted into the cluster associated with that cluster center. The selected reference documents injected into the cluster can be the same or different as the selected reference documents injected into another cluster. The reference documents in the cluster, or a subset thereof, is then used as the neighborhood for an uncoded document.

Nearest Neighbor 73 includes a comparison of uncoded documents and reference documents, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029527, published Feb. 3, 2011, pending, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Briefly, uncoded documents are identified and clustered, as discussed above. A reference set of documents is also identified. An uncoded document is selected from one of the clusters and compared against the reference set to identify one or more reference documents that are similar to the selected uncoded document. The similar reference documents are identified based on a similarity measure calculated between the selected uncoded document and each reference document. Once identified, the similar reference documents, or a subset thereof, is then used as the neighborhood.

Suggesting Classification of Uncoded Documents

An uncoded document is compared to one or more reference documents to determine a suggested classification code for the uncoded document. FIG. 6 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, classifier routines 80 for suggesting a classification for an uncoded document for use in the method of FIG. 2. Types of classifier routines include minimum distance classification measure 82, minimum average distance classification measure 83, maximum count classification measure 84, and distance weighted maximum count classification measure 85. Other types of classification measures and classifiers are possible.

The minimum distance classification measure 82, also known as closest neighbor, includes determining the closest reference document neighbor in the neighborhood to the selected uncoded document. Once determined, the classification of the closest reference document is used as the classification suggestion for the selected uncoded document. Score vectors for the selected uncoded document and for each of a number of reference documents are compared as the cos σ to determine a distance metric. The distance metrics for the reference documents are compared to identify the reference document closest to the selected uncoded document.

The minimum average distance classification distance measure 83 determines the distances of all reference documents in the neighborhood, averages the determined distances based on classification, and uses the classification of the closest average distance reference documents as the classification suggestion. The maximum count classification measure 84, also known as the voting classification measure, includes calculating the number of reference documents in the neighborhood and assigning a count, or “vote”, to each reference document. The classification that has the most “votes” is used as the classification suggestion for the uncoded document.

The distance weighted maximum count classification measure 85 is a combination of the minimum average distance 81 and maximum count classification measures 82. Each reference document in the neighborhood is given a count, but the count is differentially weighted based on the distance that reference document is from the selected uncoded document. For example, a vote of a reference document closer to the uncoded document is weighted heavier than a reference document further away. The classification determined to have the highest vote count is suggested as the classification of the selected uncoded document.

A confidence level can be provided for the suggested classification code, as described further above with reference to FIG. 3. For example, the neighborhood of a particular uncoded document can contain a total of five reference documents, with three classified as “responsive” and two classified as “non-responsive.” Determining the classification suggestion using the maximum count classification measure 84 results in a classification suggestion of “responsive” for the uncoded document, but the confidence level provided can be penalized for each of the non-suggested classification documents in the neighborhood. The penalty reduces the confidence level of the classification. Other ways of determining the confidence level are possible.

Displaying the Reference Documents

The clusters of uncoded documents and reference documents can be provided as a display to the reviewer. FIG. 7 is a screenshot 90 showing, by way of example, a visual display 91 of reference documents in relation to uncoded documents. Clusters 93 can be located along a spine, which is a vector, based on a similarity of the uncoded documents in the clusters 93. Each cluster 93 is represented by a circle; however, other shapes, such as squares, rectangles, and triangles are possible, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,888,584, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. The uncoded documents 94 are each represented by a smaller circle within the clusters 93, while the reference documents 95 are each represented by a circle with a diamond-shape within the boundaries of the circle. The reference documents 95 can be further represented by their assigned classification code. Classification codes can include “privileged,” “responsive,” and “non-responsive,” as well as other codes. Other classification categories are possible. For instance, privileged reference documents can include a circle with an “X” in the center and non-responsive reference documents can include a circle with striped lines. Other classification representations for the reference documents and other classified documents are possible, such as by color. Each cluster spine 96 is represented as a vector along which the clusters are placed.

The display 91 can be manipulated by a individual reviewer via a compass 92, which enables the reviewer to navigate, explore, and search the clusters 93 and spines 96 appearing within the compass 92, as further described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,777, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. The compass 92 visually emphasizes clusters 93 located within the borders of the compass 92, while deemphasizing clusters 93 appearing outside of the compass 92.

Spine labels 99 appear outside of the compass 92 at an end of each cluster spine 96 to connect the outermost cluster of the cluster spine 96 to preferably the closest point along the periphery of the compass 92. In one embodiment, the spine labels 99 are placed without overlap and circumferentially around the compass 92. Each spine label 99 corresponds to one or more concepts for the cluster that most closely describes a cluster spine 96 appearing within the compass 92. Additionally, the cluster concepts for each of the spine labels 99 can appear in a concepts list (not shown) also provided in the display. Toolbar buttons 97 located at the top of the display 91 enable a user to execute specific commands for the composition of the spine groups displayed. A set of pull down menus 98 provide further control over the placement and manipulation of clusters 93 and cluster spines 96 within the display 91. Other types of controls and functions are possible.

The toolbar buttons 97 and pull down menus 98 provide control to the reviewer to set parameters related to classification. For example, the confidence suggestion threshold and discordance threshold can be set at a document, cluster, or cluster spine level. Additionally, the reviewer can display the classification suggestion, as well as further details about the reference documents used for the suggestion by clicking an uncoded document, cluster, or spine. For example, a suggestion guide 100 can be placed in the display 91 and can include a “Suggestion” field, a “Confidence Level” field. The “Suggestion” field in the suggestion guide 100 provides the classification suggestion for a selected document, cluster, or spine. The “Confidence Level” field provides a confidence level of the suggested classification. Alternatively, the classification suggestion details can be revealed by hovering over the selection with the mouse.

In one embodiment, a garbage can 101 is provided to remove tokens, such as cluster concepts from consideration in the current set of clusters 93. Removed cluster concepts prevent those concepts from affecting future clustering, as may occur when a reviewer considers a concept irrelevant to the clusters 93.

The display 91 provides a visual representation of the relationships between thematically related documents, including uncoded documents and similar reference documents. The uncoded documents and reference documents located within a cluster or spine can be compared based on characteristics, such as a type of classification of the reference documents, a number of reference documents for each classification code, and a number of classification category types in the cluster to identify relationships between the uncoded documents and reference documents. The reference documents in the neighborhood of the uncoded document can be used to provide a classification code suggestion for the uncoded document. For example, FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing, by way of example, a cluster 110 with a combination of classified reference documents, uncoded documents, and documents given a classification. The cluster 110 can include one “privileged” reference document 111, two “non-responsive” documents 112, seven uncoded documents 113, one uncoded document with a “privileged” code suggestion 114, one previously uncoded document with an accepted “non-responsive” code suggestion 115, and one previously uncoded document showing a discordance 116 between the classification code suggested and the classification code manually assigned by the reviewer.

The combination of “privileged” 111 and “non-responsive” 112 reference documents within the cluster can be used by a classifier to provide a classification suggestion to a reviewer for the uncoded reference documents 113, as further described above with reference to FIG. 6. Uncoded document 114 has been assigned a suggested classification code of “privileged” by the classier. The classification suggestion can be displayed textually or visually to the reviewer. Other ways of displaying a suggested classification are possible. In one embodiment, uncoded documents are assigned a color and each classification code is assigned an individual color. Placing the color code of the suggestion on a portion 117 of the uncoded document 114 denotes the suggested classification code. Similarly, the classification suggestion for an entire cluster can be displayed textually or visually, for example by assigning a color to the cluster circle matching the color of the suggested classification code.

A reviewer can choose to accept or reject the suggested classification, as described further above with reference to FIG. 4. If accepted, the now-classified document is given the color code of the suggested classification. For example, document 115 previously assigned a suggestion of “no-responsive,” which was subsequently accepted by the reviewer, and given the visual depiction of “non-responsive.” In a further embodiment, the suggested classification code is automatically assigned to the uncoded document without the need of prior reviewer approval.

In a further embodiment, discordance between the classification code suggested and the actual classification of the document is noted by the system. For example, discordant document 116 is assigned a classification suggestion of “privileged” but coded as “non-responsive.” With the discordant option selected, the classification suggested by the classifier is retained and displayed after the uncoded document is manually classified.

The classification of uncoded documents has been described in relation to documents; however, in a further embodiment, the classification process can be applied to tokens. For example, uncoded tokens are clustered and similar reference tokens are used to provide classification suggestions based on relationships between the uncoded tokens and similar reference tokens. In one embodiment, the tokens include concepts, n-grams, raw terms, and entities.

While the invention has been particularly shown and described as referenced to the embodiments thereof, those skilled in the art will understand that the foregoing and other changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented system for visual document classification, comprising: one or more uncoded documents, each associated with a visual representation; one or more reference documents, each associated with a classification code and a visual representation of that classification code; a processor to execute code, comprising: a comparison module to compare at least one of the uncoded documents to one or more of the reference documents and to identify the reference documents similar to the at least one uncoded document based on the comparison; a suggestion module to provide a suggestion for assigning one of the classification codes to the at least uncoded document based on the classification codes of the similar reference documents, comprising displaying the visual representation of the suggested classification code placed on a portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one uncoded document; and an acceptance module to receive an acceptance of the suggested classification code and to increase a size of the displayed visual representation of the accepted classification code.
 2. The computer-implemented system according to claim 1, further comprising: a confidence module to determine a confidence level for the suggested classification code; and a threshold module to compare the confidence level to a threshold, wherein the visual representation of the suggested classification code is displayed when the confidence level exceeds the threshold.
 3. The computer-implemented system according to claim 1, further comprising: a difference module to receive from a user an assignment to the at least one uncoded document of one of the classification codes different from the suggested classification code; and a display module to display the visual representation of the assigned classification code on a different portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one document.
 4. The computer-implemented system according to claim 1, further comprising: a confidence module to determine a confidence level for the suggested classification code; a difference module to receive from a user an assignment to the at least one uncoded document of one of the classification codes different from the suggested classification code and to determine a confidence level for the assigned classification code; a calculation module to calculate a difference between the confidence level for the suggested classification code and the confidence level for the assigned classification code and to compare the difference to a threshold; and a discordance module to display a discordance between the assigned classification code and the suggested classification code when the difference exceeds the threshold.
 5. The computer-implemented system according to claim 1, further comprising: a clustering module to obtain one or more clusters, each comprising one or more of the uncoded documents; and a cluster representation module to display the clusters.
 6. The computer-implemented system according to claim 5, further comprising: a similarity module to determine a similarity between the clusters; an organization module to organize the clusters along one or more spines, each spine comprising a vector, based on the similarity; and a spine display module to display the spines with the displayed clusters.
 7. The computer-implemented system according to claim 5, further comprising: a neighborhood module to compare a center of one of the displayed clusters to one or more of the reference documents and to determine a neighborhood of the reference documents for that displayed cluster based on the comparison; and a cluster classification module to suggest one of the classification codes for assignment to the displayed cluster based on the classification codes of the reference documents in the neighborhood.
 8. The computer-implemented system according to claim 7, further comprising: a cluster suggestion module to display the visual representation of the classification code suggested for the displayed cluster on at least a portion of the displayed cluster.
 9. The computer-implemented system according to claim 5, further comprising: a compass module to provide a compass within which one or more of the clusters are displayed; an emphasizing module to visually emphasize those of the clusters displayed within the compass; and a deemphasizing module to visually deemphasize those of the clusters appearing outside of the compass.
 10. The computer-implemented system according to claim 1, wherein the visual representation of the suggested classification code comprises at least one of a color, a pattern, a shape, and a symbol.
 11. A computer-implemented method for visual document classification, comprising: obtaining one or more uncoded documents, each associated with a visual representation; obtaining one or more reference documents, each associated with a classification code and a visual representation of that classification code; comparing at least one of the uncoded documents to one or more of the reference documents and identifying the reference documents similar to the at least one uncoded document based on the comparison; providing a suggestion for assigning one of the classification codes to the at least uncoded document based on the classification codes of the similar reference documents, comprising displaying the visual representation of the suggested classification code placed on a portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one uncoded document; and receiving an acceptance of the suggested classification code and increasing a size of the displayed visual representation of the accepted classification code.
 12. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, further comprising: determining a confidence level for the suggested classification code; and comparing the confidence level to a threshold, wherein the visual representation of the suggested classification code is displayed when the confidence level exceeds the threshold.
 13. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, further comprising: receiving from a user an assignment to the at least one uncoded document of one of the classification codes different from the suggested classification code; and displaying the visual representation of the assigned classification code on a different portion of the visual representation associated with the at least one document.
 14. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, further comprising: determining a confidence level for the suggested classification code; and receiving from a user an assignment to the at least one uncoded document of one of the classification codes different from the suggested classification code; determining a confidence level for the assigned classification code; calculating a difference between the confidence level for the suggested classification code and the confidence level for the assigned classification code and comparing the difference to a threshold; and displaying a discordance between the assigned classification code and the suggested classification code when the difference exceeds the threshold.
 15. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining one or more clusters, each comprising one or more of the uncoded documents; and displaying the clusters.
 16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 15, further comprising: determining a similarity between the clusters; organizing the clusters along one or more spines, each spine comprising a vector, based on the similarity; and displaying the spines with the displayed clusters.
 17. The computer-implemented method according to claim 15, further comprising: comparing a center of one of the displayed clusters to one or more of the reference documents and determining a neighborhood of the reference documents for that displayed cluster based on the comparison; and suggesting one of the classification codes for assigning to the displayed cluster based on the classification codes of the reference documents in the neighborhood.
 18. The computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising: displaying the visual representation of the classification code suggested for the displayed cluster on at least a portion of the displayed cluster.
 19. The computer-implemented method according to claim 15, further comprising: providing a compass within which one or more of the clusters are displayed; visually emphasizing those of the clusters displayed within the compass; and visually deemphasizing those of the clusters appearing outside of the compass.
 20. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the visual representation of the suggested classification code comprises at least one of a color, a pattern, a shape, and a symbol. 